War Resolution

Ok, huge disappointment, no question. The bill, as is, is pretty much a failure, the Democrats should have pushed longer and for more. The Democrats still have not learned that the reason they have been seen as week on defense is not their failure to call for invading this nation or that nor for their opposition to this weapons system or the other. They have been seen as week on defense for the way that they stand up to Republicans on issues of national defense.

Democrats and progressives don't seem to see that their position on war effectively follows the postition of Sun Tzu in "The Art of War", namely

True excellence in the Art of War comes not in fighting a hundred battles and winning them all, but in accomplishing your national objectives without fighting a single battle.

The Democrats have been reluctant to authorize military action because the nation would be better off achieving our national goals by other means. The nation as whole wants to hear this clearly and well argued, and if the Democrats did argue this position forcefully, they would be seen as strong. Instead they are caught in this belief that to appear strong on national defense they must support Republicans. Not only does this not make them look strong, it makes them look weak.

Now, I say that Democrats still don't realize this. As a party, this is true, the leadership is still way behind on this, but the message is seeping in. A growing portion of the leadership is starting to understand this and so we say the fight over the appropriations bill. Don't despair, we lost this fight but we are pushing forward. Keep in mind that it took 16 years, at least, for conservatives to rise from the 1964 to gain the control they wanted. We've been organizing for at most seven, and really more like 3-4. Also, with George Bush in office there is almost no chance of ending this war before he is gone. We might get a constitutional crises, but an actual end to Iraq will take time. The withdraw itself will take a year, in any case.

Another problem that we face in changing the culture in Washington is the inside the beltway mentality. The people who comprise the Senate and House, along with our political consultants and journalist pundits, comprise a very insulated population. In that world, the withdraw from Iraq is still seen as a crazy idea, and the perpetual hunt for a miracle in Iraq is a good idea. In that world Republicans are still seen as wise and strong on foreign policy and our national pundits are still viewed as sage counselors. We, the people, simply must keep up the pressure and do the work of getting the message into that culture that these things are simply not true. And furthermore the vast majority of the American people no longer believe them to be true.

King George

So now George Bush is saying he will veto the latest measure that House Democrats are proposing for Iraq war funding.

House Democratic leaders are now putting together a proposal that would pay for the war through September but come with a different set of conditions: About half of the money would be dependent on Bush reporting to Congress this summer on the Iraqi government's progress toward meeting security goals.

Even this degree of oversight and accountability is too much for this President.

President Bush would veto the new Iraq spending bill being developed by House Democrats because it includes unacceptable language restricting funding, White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday morning.

Apparently any restrictions whatsoever on George Bush spending will draw a veto. Keep in mind that he is threatening to leave our troops without support in the field (it is questionable how true this is, but that is his claim) unless he gets everything he wants. Furthermore, this latest proposal would not, in any way, hamper the ability of our military to function. No, this President is simply being petulant and insisting that he get his way. More significantly, he is indicating that he can't function if there is going to be any review of his work. This is simply intolerable. The American people are sovereign and have every right to hold their President accountable for his performance as commander-in-chief. We must do exactly that. Pressure needs to be brought upon our Republican members of Congress to no longer support the childishness of this President.

To My Representative

I just sent the following off to my representative inspired by Matt Stoler.

Yesterday, George Bush vetoed the supplemental spending bill approved by both Houses of Congress. The bill as originally passed was a good bill and should have had the President's signature. The timelines and restrictions in the bill simply reflect the will of the American people. George Bush has no right to demand a blank check from the American people for his war. Therefore, I am concerned to hear that some members of the Democratic leadership are talking now of removing those restrictions from the next version of the bill. That should not be done.

First I urge the Democratic leadership to put the bill up for another vote to overturn the veto. Let those who support the President go on record that they would deprive our soldiers of needed supplies in order to support George Bush's unreasonable demands. Secondly, a new bill should be passed providing funding for only two months. Let the issue be brought up and debated so that we, the American people, can be assured that progress is indeed being made in Iraq.

Finally, the Reid-Feingold proposal should be the basis of the Democrats position from this point forward. Clearly state that the war will not be funded after a set date in the future and stick to that position.

Let yours know how your feel. Your representatives contact information can be found here.

Bush Cuts Funding for Troops in Field

Today George Bush, the President of the United States, cut funding for our troops in the field in Iraq. The people of the United States, through their representatives in Congress, had previously authorized further funding to support those troops in the field, provide them with equipment supplies and support, and to aid their safe return to their homes. Out of his petulant insistence in having his own way in all things, George Bush vetoed that funding and put the safety and security of those brave men and women at risk. This is a sad day for our country.

Desperate Bush

John Aravosis sees another indication that Bush is feeling desperate these days. Bush is at Camp David for the Abe visit. Bush does not want to veto this bill. Note that "The White House has not said whether Bush plans a quiet veto or a public ceremony." They are not all that keen on making this a public issue. The veto, and the showdown are not attractive to this Administration. They are loosing this fight and they know it. As long as the Democrats stay aware of that fact, a decent funding bill will become law.

Maybe a Good Compromise

The Iraq War supplemental spending bills have been reconciled. The House and Senate have reached a deal. As John Aravosis puts it, "it's the House benchmarks and the Senate timetable for withdrawl." Looks like it might be a fine compromise. No caving to George Bush. Congress needs to stick to its guns and make the man sign it with the imposed restrictions, or follow through on his threat and veto it. There had been some talk around the internet that the reconciliation bill might be quite watered down. It seems like that is not the case.

Update: Via mcjoan at daily Kos here is a WaPo article on the bill. It looks like it is headed for a veto. The bill should reach Bush's desk by late Thursday. If it does get to Bush's desk on Thursday then he has until May 8 to veto it.

Powered by ScribeFire.

What is wrong with these people?

I mean Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). Why in the name of all that's holy is he offering to cave on the Iraq war supplemental. Bush has not yet vetoed the bill. Do not offer Bush something better before he vetoes the bill. Even if you are going to cave, which the Democrats really should not (see Talk Left on this) at least make the President veto the bill. Everyone in the country wants the Democrats to hold firm and everyone in the country will see Bush's veto of the bill as Bush refusing to support the troops. Do not give the man an out. There is absolutely no reason at this point to be offering anything to George Bush on this issue. Harry Reid has it right (via Greg Sergent)

Harry Reid is now on C-Span responding to the President's speech today demanding that Congress defy the American people and give him a bill funding his war with no withdrawal timelines. Asked by a reporter if Congress would be making some kind of offer to Bush in the quest for a compromise, Reid said:

"The offer is that the President sign our bill."

That is absolutely the only offer that should be made at this point.

Extending troop deployments

So on Tuesday President Bush addressed the American Legion and, among other things, took the opportunity to lay into Congress over the war funding supplemental

The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country.

This is what Bush was saying on Tuesday. Now set aside for a moment the absurdity of him claiming that because Congress has passed a bill that will require him to bring troops home sooner than he wants, he will veto the bill, forcing the troops to stay there longer, and this will be the fault of Congress. Let's for a moment believe that there is some plausible reason behind his basic claim. On Tuesday he is claiming that if Congress presents him with a bill with a time line, then because of the time line he will be forced to extend troop deployments. Ok.

On Wednesday the Pentagon, you know the Pentagon ultimately answerable to and run by George Bush, announces that troop deployments will be extended by three months. This is you know, well before the bill from Congress is presented to him. So, this increase in the troop deployment time is not being caused by the form of the bill presented by Congress, because you know there is not yet a bill being presented by Congress. This in spite of the fact that 24-hours earlier the President was saying that Congress was, maybe, going to force the increase in the troop deployment time.

Something is a little fishy. It gets worse.

It turns out that the announcement on Wednesday was forced because someone leaked the increase in the troop deployments to the press.

In terms of why we're announcing it simultaneously with the unit commanders, I'll be very blunt. Some very thoughtless person in this building made the unilateral decision yesterday to deny the army the opportunity to notify unit commanders who could then talk to their troops 48 hours before we made a public announcement. And, I can't tell you how angry it makes many of us that one individual would create potentially so much hardship not only for our servicemen and women but their families, by letting them read about something like this in the newspapers.

So it would seem that the Pentagon was expecting to increase the length of the troop deployments, and would need to increase those deployments whatever form the funding bill from Congress took.

Mind you from President Bush accusing Congress of forcing this to happen depending upon the form that the funding bill takes, until Gates is announcing the new policy, takes approximately 24-hours. But that is only because "some thoughtless person in this building" leaked the information. Could it be that the White House plan was to sit on this information until the bill came from Congress then make the announcement and blame Congress, even though they were planning this change all along? I wonder.

Mind you it gets even worse. The "good" explanation, the one that the White House wants you to believe is that George Bush doesn't know what's going on.

Dana Perino explained the timing by claiming that President Bush had been in the dark about the troop deployments until the morning it was announced:

Q So why did he tell the American Legion that people would be staying in Iraq longer because of the Democrats, when his own Pentagon, 24 hours later, was going to keep people there longer?

MS. PERINO: Well, one, I don’t know if the President knew about the — the meeting — remember, yesterday morning is when Secretary Gates came and talked to the President. […]

Q And so the President didn’t know about his own policy until Wednesday?

MS. PERINO: I’m not aware that the President knew that there was going to be — that Secretary Gates had come to any decisions.

So, the best explanation, is that George Bush was so concerned about the possibility that the form of the funding bill might force troop deployments to be extended, but was unaware that his existing policies were doing exactly that anyway. Now that he knows that his current plan is going to force these extensions, which on Wednesday were a real concern, does it matter any more? Apparently not. And this is the "good" explanation.

Bush is getting very weak

As reported by Think Progress the Bush Administration invited senior congressional reporters to the White House last week in order to pressure them into reporting more on "divisions" within the ranks of Iraq war critics. The fact that they are doing so, and the fact that it is being leaked out and reported on, shows the growing concern the White House has over vetoing the spending bill. As I've been saying, the White House does not want to veto this bill and furthermore the Democrats are starting to understand that the White House doesn't want to veto this. This is more and more becoming a fight, like Social Security reform, that the White House will loose. This report is important on two fronts, one it shows the growing desperation of the White House on this issue and as Think Progress points out it highlights the unity of the Democrats

In fact, congressional opponents of the war are remarkably united on efforts to set a timeline for redeployment, bolstered by consistent public opinion polls showing broad public support for withdrawal. Meanwhile, conservatives are splintering. This week, a “diverse collection of House Republicans has formed an ad hoc group” to encourage the White House “to compromise on negotiations with Syria and Iran and on setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq.”

The White House is in a losing fight and wants the media to help them carry water. We’ll be watching to see if any congressional reporters fall in line and write up the White House spin.

Rahm Emanuel calls for Democrats to hang tough

This is a piece of very welcome news. Here is a memo from Rahm Emanuel urging all Democrats to hand tough and continue to pressure Bush on the war funding resolution. Now Rahm Emanuel has not been one of the most progressive and anti-war members of the Democratic caucus. Indeed he has come under considerable fire from the left side of the party for being too centrist, too DLC. So, if Rahm Emanuel has adopted this position then the Democratic leadership is united and we are in an excellent position to keep the rank and file similarly united. In other words, even the Blue Dogs should be willing to go with what he is saying. Here are a few choice quotes from the memo

We find ourselves in a strong position because the American people support our policy objectives and our plan for Iraq, especially as they measure up against the failures of the administration’s policies. As we continue through the process of sending an Iraq spending bill to the President for his approval, we need to go beyond the debate about the funding for the war, and remind the American people of the policies we are recommending -- benchmarks for the Iraqis, support for our troops through training and equipment, and a plan for a responsible and strategic redeployment of our troops. It is also important that we remind the country of the policy position of Congressional Republicans on Iraq – their rubberstamping of the President’s Iraq policies, and their refusal to conduct responsible oversight.

...

President Bush has continued to demand Congress provide him with a blank check for an open-ended commitment of American troops in Iraq. Democrats and the American people agree that we must change direction in Iraq by providing our troops with the resources and protection they need, while planning for a strategic and responsible redeployment of US troops.

...

As we move forward, we should not lose sight of the fact that nearly 70% of the country supports our plan for Iraq. The country is more engaged in this issue than any other, and has paid close attention to the plans offered by Democrats and the President. The country has made a conscious decision to support our approach.

...

Given the Republicans' unwillingness to offer their own alternative or plan for funding our troops and changing direction in Iraq, Democrats must remain resolute while publicly urging the President to join us for meaningful negotiations on the supplemental. While we will never reject out of hand any offer from the President to meet and discuss the supplemental, we must insist on meaningful negotiations with the White House.

Read the whole thing but these are exactly the kinds of things I want to hear from the Democratic leadership. Given the position Bush is in over this funding bill, I am absolutely convinced that the Democrats can win this fight if they do just hang tough. With members of the Democratic caucus such as Rahm Emanuel articulating these ideas, we should be in good shape.

Twelve Critical Days

With regard to the Iraq War funding bill there are upcoming 11 or 12 critical days, a window where we can have an opportunity, perhaps, to force Bush's hand and prevent the bill from being vetoed, or at least make the veto as costly and difficult as possible. To understand my idea here, first look at the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

So my first point is that from the time the bill is delivered to Bush's desk, there are 11 or 12 days (depending on the day of the week when it arrives, how many Sundays get skipped before the ten days are up) for him to veto the bill, or it becomes law "in like manner as if he had signed it" providing we can keep the House and Senate in session for that time. I assume that keeping the Congress in session will not be a problem.

My next point is that we need to create media events and political pressure of all types to convey the messages that

1. if President Bush vetoes the bill, then he is defunding the troops in Iraq.
2. Please President Bush, do not defund the troops in Iraq.

By media events and political pressure I'm talking about

• letter writing campaigns to the press, to Congress and to the White House
• Speeches and rallies by Senators, Congressmen and women, Presidential Candidates
• Marches and rallies by citizens
• Whatever else we can think of
  

If we can do that we can make it as difficult as possible for him to veto the bill, certainly on the same day that such an event is going on.

My final point is that if we can keep this up for twelve days he will either have to veto the bill on the same day that these things are in the news, or it will become law.